Thursday, Feb. 4, 2021
Volume 156 No. 4 SERVING SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY SINCE 1934
WWW.SJSUNEWS.COM/SPARTAN_DAILY
ILLUSTRATION BY HANZ PACHECO
SJSU faculty left unheard
Professors claim grievance process is unjust By Christian Trujano SENIOR STAFF WRITER
W
hen San Jose State music professor Gwendolyn Mok was removed from her position as coordinator of keyboard area for reasons she said are unjust, the ones who were most affected, she said, were her students. After filing a grievance and attending an 11-hour-long level 2 statutory hearing to get her position back, she said she’s now left feeling alone in a fight against the university, something she said many faculty members at SJSU experience. “I sometimes get the feeling that this university treats the faculty like secondclass citizens,” Mok said over the phone. “The students are, of course, very important to us . . . but this is not like a corporation where there are clients. We are the faculty, we’re the ones who define each of these different departments and you have a lot of talented faculty on this campus.” Mok’s Oct. 29, 2020 hearing is one of two recent cases that sparked concerns regarding the faculty grievance process. The second case involved justice studies associate professor Sang Kil’s Nov. 23 grievance hearing where she was denied promotion to full professor in the 2019-20 academic year. Kil was one of seven women of color who were denied tenure or promotion during the 2018-19 Retention, Tenure and Promotion process. Mok, who is a tenured full professor, said she feels faculty members are being silenced. “I am outraged. I am furious, I am incredibly gutted,” she said. “I’m really concerned now, also, for the other faculty who want to file a grievance and need to be heard and will not be heard in a fair environment.”
The grievance process Faculty grievances are defined by the California Faculty Association as allegations made by employees stating they were wronged when it comes to their
job classification benefits, working conditions, appointment, reappointment, tenure, promotion or reassignment. After filing, the grievant must go through four levels of hearings, according to a CFA grievance flowchart. Grievants can choose between a statutory process, that would take place on campus, or a contractual process that would take place off campus. The first level of meetings determine whether the grievance has a case or not. This is where the grievant fully presents their case with all their arguments and if they cannot resolve the matter, then they will receive a denial response. Mok and Kil both chose a statutory process and both cases were rejected in the level one meeting. The second level gives rejected grievants like Mok and Kil a chance to appeal their cases to a Faculty Hearing Committee. This committee is composed of three impartial faculty members serving as a jury to give recommendations for a course of action. A key component to the process is the approval of SJSU President Mary Papazian, who has the final say in any grievance hearing. After both Mok and Kil made their cases at the second level of hearings Papazian rejected their grievances, despite unanimous support from each of the different hearing committees. “Of course as the president you have that legal right to do that because you are the president,” Mok said in regards to Papazian having the final decision in matters such as grievances. “But what kind of respect does that show you, as a president towards your own faculty? It doesn’t show a lot of respect to the faculty.” If faculty members get rejected by the president, they can still choose to appeal and take the case to arbitration where a final decision will be made. Arbitration is another form of alternative dispute resolution similar to a court hearing. Mok said she’s planning to take her case to arbitration and Kil recently finished filing her paperwork to proceed as well. GRIEVANCES | Page 2